Feb
9
Restoring Voting Rights for Felons
Filed Under Opinion/Editorial
Last night Kentucky Tonight again aired a program regarding the debate of restoring voting rights to convicted felons in Kentucky. Voting rights have some level of restriction on ex-felons in 48 of 50 American states; however, Kentucky and Virginia are noted for having tighter restrictions than most other states. This is one of those debates that is always puzzling. Liberals and conservatives see it so differently.
Under the previous Fletcher administration for a felon to get his voting rights restored in Kentucky he or she must serve their time and apply for restoration. The applicant had to write an essay, get three personal letters of recommendations and have the application approved by the district attorney. In March of 2008, Governor Beshear eased the process for felons, removing the above requirements.
(An interesting aside in view of the upcoming Kentucky Senate race, Secretary of State Trey Grayson is on record as favoring Beshear’s changes to ease felon voting requirements.)
Now, many Democrats are pushing for a State Constitutional amendment to automatically restore voting rights as soon as you are out of prison, regardless of what you were incarcerated for. They argue that voting is a basic civil right and that once you have paid your time, all your civil rights should be restored. They claim it is disenfranchising many Kentuckians (one in seventeen) from the right to vote. Perhaps the problem is we have too many felons in Kentucky. They also suggest that it is discriminatory to blacks. That would be a fair argument if the law was being applied in a discriminatory fashion to black felons as compared to white felons, but that does not appear to be the case. There is unfortunately just more black felons (one in four), on a proportionate basis.
Liberals see these things very differently than conservatives. Many favor voting rights for incarcerated prisoners and oppose any requirement to even prove your identity such as photo id to prevent voter fraud. They don’t take into consideration extenuating factors of the particular crime someone was convicted of. Are they advocating voting rights for kidnappers, child pornographer, rapists, repeat felons, etc.? Why not give them their second amendment rights back, the right to bear arms too? Many liberals oppose the death penalty, even for the most heinous of crimes yet believe the right for mothers to end the life of their unborn children is sacrosanct. This tendency of liberals to protect criminals while opposing protections for the unborn or the victims of criminals is odd at the very least and disturbing to many. It is perhaps one of the fundamental differences that separate liberals and conservatives on so many matters.
Perhaps there is another reason why liberals support voting rights for felons. A study conducted by the Dept of Justice Administration at University of Louisville estimated the impact of Kentucky’s felons voting on the 2008 elections. Felons clearly favored the Democrat candidates overwhelmingly (any surprise?). However, the study concluded that it would not have altered the election results in 2008. But, how about in a close election? Is this really what’s behind the movement – political power?
The previous requirements of the Fletcher administration seemed about right. Ex-felons that showed that they actually had rehabilitated, could get their voting rights back and return to society. But with recidivism rates so high, to make it easy or worse still, automatically give felons voting rights, so they can vote on laws and lawmakers when they have demonstrated that they don’t respect the law, without first establishing their rehabilitation, seems unwise. In the same vain, to allow a convicted felon the right to carry a gun again is also unwise.
Comments
Leave a Reply